Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field.

Spring is eventful. Next week, we are concluding our Webinar Series in French and English. Join us on April 2, Tuesday, for a dive into questions on Freedom of Expression Protections and Limitations within the African System.

With less than a month left until CGFoE’s 10th Anniversary Celebration, it is time to mark your calendars: on April 25, 2024, CGFoE will host an all-day event at the Italian Academy, Columbia University, New York. What are the current global free speech achievements, challenges, and ways forward? We will discuss all those and more at the day’s high-level conference co-chaired by UNESCO, networking lunch, and book talk. Who will receive the 2024 Prizes in Significant Legal Ruling and Excellence in Legal Services? The event will culminate with the Prize Ceremony. Learn more and RSVP here.

In the meantime, nominees for the 2024 CGFoE Prizes continue to inspire. But which one inspires you the most? We share more nominated cases and encourage you to explore them. The Turkish Constitutional Court held that the denial of a request for information regarding statistics on decisions blocking websites constituted a violation of freedom of expression. The IACtHR found that Guatemala’s regulation of radio frequency allocation was discriminatory against indigenous peoples as the rules made it impossible for structurally impoverished indigenous communities to operate their own media outlets. Finally, in Silveira v. São Paulo State Treasury Office, the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil held that the State was liable for injuries to journalists caused by the police during protests and awarded compensation to a journalist who had been hit in the eye by a rubber bullet while reporting on a protest.

Stay tuned – the winners will be announced soon.

Decisions this Week

Türkiye
The application brought by Yaman Akdeniz regarding information about Website Blocking in Turkey, No. 2
Decision Date: February 15, 2023
The Turkish Constitutional Court held that the denial of a request for information regarding statistics on decisions blocking websites constituted a violation of freedom of expression. An academic and freedom of information activist had submitted a request to the Information Technologies and Communication Authority for detailed statistical information regarding access blocking decisions to websites for catalogue crimes and their legal grounds. The Court recognized that the activist had a “continuous need” to obtain information regarding access blocking practices and that such information was a prerequisite for the exercise of freedom of expression as he actively engages in academic and civil society roles in the fields of internet law and human rights. The Court held that the rejection of his request was a violation of freedom of expression.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Indigenous People Maya Kaqchikel from Sumpango v. Guatemala
Decision Date: October 6, 2021
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that the State of Guatemala breached articles 13 and 26 of the American Convention of Human Rights, on the ground that its regulation regarding the allocation of radio frequencies was discriminatory against indigenous peoples. According to the “Ley General de Telecomunicaciones” (General Telecommunications Bill) radio frequencies will always be allocated to the highest bidder in a public auction. This made it impossible for structurally impoverished indigenous communities to operate their own media outlets, which in turns harms diversity and pluralism in media. Similarly, the Court considered that the criminal prosecution undertaken by the State of Guatemala against members of two indigenous communities operating radio stations without licenses, along with other criminal proceedings used to undermine the operation of the radio stations, were disproportionate measures that breached article 13.2 of the American Convention.

Brazil
Silveira v. São Paulo State Treasury Office
Decision Date: June 10, 2021
The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil held that the State was liable for injuries to journalists caused by police action when covering protests. A journalist was hit in the eye by a rubber bullet when covering a protest and lost 90% of his vision in that eye. He sought compensation from the State and was successful in the first instance court. When the second instance court overturned the decision, holding that the State was not liable, he appealed to the Supreme Federal Court. The Court examined the rights to freedom of the press and to work, and the UN guidelines on the use of less-lethal law enforcement mechanisms, and awarded the journalist compensation for medical expenses, loss of earnings and pain and suffering.

Community Highlights & Recent News

● Upcoming Event – Freedom of Expression Protections and Limitations within the African System Webinar. Do not miss the last conversation in our Webinar Series marking the launch of the French Language Case Law Database. How have the organs of the African System of Human and People’s Rights dealt with fundamental questions on freedom of expression and access to information in their jurisprudence? The webinar will feature CGFoE’s Special Collection Paper on the African System, and the panelists will reflect on the System’s contributions to the global understanding of freedom of expression norms, as well as existing challenges and limitations in the regional context. The webinar will be in French, with simultaneous interpretation in English. April 2, 2024. 6-7:00 am ET (New York); 11:00 am -12:00 pm GMT (Dakar); 12-1:00 pm CET (Paris). Register here. 

● Türkiye: RSF Calls on Turkish Government to Amend Internet Law after Highest Court Rules That It Violates Right to Information. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) highlights the recent decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court regarding Article 9 of the Internet Law and insists that the Turkish government reform the legislation in question. RSF stresses that Article 9 of Law 5651 “allows a judge to use ‘violation of the rights of the person’ as grounds for censoring any online content indefinitely.” On February 6, 2024, the Constitutional Court ruled that hundreds of lower court decisions censoring online publications based on that law breached freedom of expression and press freedom rights. The Court had flagged problems with Article 9 earlier, arguing that the law stripped Internet users of “effective recourse” to defend their rights. Despite that and the February 6 ruling, some lower court judges continue to censor online content on matters of public interest, with corruption being one. 
 
● Egypt: Recent Decision on Case 173 Does Not Mean That the Human Rights Crisis Is Over. The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) reports that in Case no. 173 of 2011, also known as the “NGO Foreign Funding Case,” the investigative judge dropped charges against five human rights defense organizations based on insufficient evidence. The case targeted the CIHRS, Nadeem Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the Arab Network for Human Rights Information, and the Arab Penal Reform Organization. The CIHRS, however, does not declare victory yet. Mohamed Zaree, CIHRS’ Director of Egypt Office, argues, “Addressing Egypt’s human rights crisis requires serious steps starting with the immediate release of tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience, and dismantling the arsenal of draconian legislation and practices used by Egyptian authorities to crack down on peaceful political opposition, free media, and independent civil society.”

● Hong Kong: Joint Statement Opposing Article 23. Citing the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), IFEX published the joint statement, signed by 145 human rights groups, including ARTICLE 19, Reporters Without Borders, and Freedom House, that denounced Hong Kong’s new national security law. The law – the Safeguarding National Security Bill or “Article 23” – threatens to intensify the ongoing crackdown on dissent by facilitating politically motivated prosecutions. Article 23 sets out to target an unprecedented range of Hong Kong residents with its imprecise and broad definitions – those of “espionage” and “seditious intention,” among others. The statement emphasizes, “The new legislation reinforces a separate judicial process for political cases, which involves appointed national security police officers in addition to handpicked prosecutors and judges, and deprives suspects of important procedural protections […].” Despite international condemnation, the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region pushed for Article 23’s passage in an expedited manner. 

Teaching Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers

This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers.

APC Submission on Protection Against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, in Relation to Freedom of Expression, Association, and Assembly.
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) presents its submission to the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE SOGI). The IE SOGI’s thematic report for the UN Human Rights Council’s 56th session will explore how freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association rights “relate to protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” The APC submission focuses on the digital sphere and includes inputs from civil society activists and organizations that review the following countries: India, Paraguay, Uganda, Botswana, Rwanda, South Africa, Indonesia, and Türkiye. Underscoring that “violence and discrimination initiated offline can be aggravated and perpetrated online, and vice versa,” the submission concludes with recommendations to governments and tech companies.

Post Scriptum

● Have Trouble Understanding Section 230? Don’t Worry. So Does the Supreme Court, by Jeff Kosseff. The article, published by Lawfare, starts by referring to last year’s Gonzalez v. Google hearing, Justice Elena Kagan’s statement “[T]hese are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet,” and the Court missing a chance to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. “Almost exactly a year later, on Feb. 26,” Kosseff writes, “the nine non-experts were back in the courtroom, hearing arguments in another vital technology case.” In Netchoice v. Moody and Netchoice v. Paxton, Florida and Texas laws that limit social media companies’ content moderation on their platforms were challenged. Even though Section 230 did not appear before the court directly, the justices and lawyers referred to it more than 70 times during the hearings. In the article, Kosseff argues those references were full of Section 230 misinterpretations, explains the law’s history, and refutes the flawed arguments the justices made.

This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression.  For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.